AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505. That is a 36.6% advantage for the Quadro in raw compute throughput. This is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial lead that places the two cards in different performance tiers entirely.

Contextualizing the Quadro K3100M’s score, it sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 (a 0.1% deficit, essentially a tie), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (1.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (1.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063 (1.8% ahead). The Quadro’s average benchmark score across all tests is 5154, which means its OpenCL result of 6154 is actually above its own average, showing strength in compute workloads.

The AMD FirePro W4190M, by contrast, scores 4505 in OpenCL and has an identical average benchmark score of 4505, as it has no other recorded benchmarks. Its percentile ranking is 26th, four points lower than the Quadro. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4499 (0.1% behind), Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (1.2% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (1.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (1.6% ahead). The FirePro is essentially trading blows with integrated and entry-level discrete graphics, while the Quadro is competing with mid-range mobile GeForce parts.

The database also lists Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores for the Quadro K3100M: 3823 in Metal and 5484 in Vulkan. The FirePro W4190M has no recorded scores for those APIs, so no comparison is possible there. However, the Vulkan score of 5484 is notable, as it exceeds the OpenCL score of many higher-tier rivals, suggesting the Quadro has strong compute capabilities across multiple frameworks.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the outright winner in every measurable category. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 36.6%, has a higher average benchmark score (5154 vs. 4505), and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution (30th vs. 26th). The FirePro’s only measurable advantage is its boost clock, which runs at 900 MHz versus the Quadro’s flat 706 MHz, but that does not translate into higher throughput, as the Quadro more than compensates with 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Who should pick the Quadro K3100M? Anyone whose workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, as the data shows a 36.6% lead in that specific test. The Quadro also has a broader benchmark profile, with recorded Metal and Vulkan scores, making it a more versatile choice for cross-API testing. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus yield 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is exactly 60% more than the FirePro’s 64.00 GB/s.

Who should pick the AMD FirePro W4190M? The data does not strongly support any workload where it wins outright. Its only recorded score is lower, its percentile is lower, and its memory subsystem is smaller. The FirePro does have a newer release date (November 2015 vs. July 2013) and a higher DirectX version support (12 (11_1) vs. 12 (11_0)), but those are feature-level differences, not performance metrics. If the choice is strictly based on benchmark results, the Quadro is the clear selection.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, which contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, which has just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and their transistor densities are nearly identical (12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA, 12.3M per mm² for AMD), but the sheer scale of the NVIDIA chip is vastly larger.

The Quadro’s GK104 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The FirePro’s Opal has exactly half the shading units (384), 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This explains the Quadro’s higher fill rates: 11.30 GPixel/s pixel rate and 45.18 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s for the FirePro. The Quadro’s FP32 throughput is 1,084.4 GFLOPS, compared to 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The Quadro carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. The FirePro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The FirePro’s memory clock is higher in effective terms (4 Gbps vs. 3.2 Gbps), but the narrower bus halves the bandwidth advantage.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those features.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5154, while the AMD FirePro W4190M averages 4505. The Quadro leads by 649 points, or approximately 14.4%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K3100M in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro scores 6154 versus 4505 for the FirePro, a 36.6% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: Does the FirePro W4190M have any higher clock speeds?

A: Yes. The FirePro has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The Quadro runs at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. Despite the clock disadvantage, the Quadro still wins decisively due to its larger shader count and memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K3100M delivers 102.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W4190M delivers 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The Quadro has 60% more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro ranks in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro ranks in the 26th percentile. This indicates the Quadro outperforms a larger share of the GPU population.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the FirePro wins?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the FirePro W4190M. The Quadro wins the single head-to-head benchmark, and the FirePro has no other benchmark entries to claim a victory.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins every category where data exists. In OpenCL compute, it is 36.6% ahead. In memory bandwidth, it is 60% higher (102.4 GB/s vs. 64.00 GB/s). In pixel fill rate, it achieves 11.30 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, a 57% lead. In texture fill rate, it achieves 45.18 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, more than double. In FP32 compute, it delivers 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS, a 57% advantage.

The FirePro W4190M wins in clock speed, with a boost of 900 MHz versus 706 MHz. It also has a newer release date (November 2015 vs. July 2013) and supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0) on the Quadro. However, these are not performance wins; they are specification differences that do not translate into higher benchmark scores. The FirePro also has a higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² vs. 12.0M per mm²), but this is a minor distinction given the vastly larger absolute transistor count of the Quadro.

For use cases, the Quadro is the choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads, Vulkan compute, or Metal-based tasks. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 256-bit bus make it better suited for larger datasets in mobile workstations. The FirePro, with its lower power footprint implied by a smaller die, might be preferable for thermally constrained chassis, but the database does not include TDP figures for the FirePro, so this cannot be quantified.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors, while the FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors. Die sizes are 294 mm² and 77 mm², respectively. The Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the FirePro has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds favor the FirePro: base 825 MHz and boost 900 MHz versus a flat 706 MHz for the Quadro. Memory clocks are 3.2 Gbps effective for the Quadro and 4 Gbps effective for the FirePro, but the Quadro’s 256-bit bus versus 128-bit bus yields 102.4 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5.

Pixel rates are 11.30 GPixel/s (Quadro) and 7.200 GPixel/s (FirePro). Texture rates are 45.18 GTexel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,084.4 GFLOPS and 691.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a TDP of 75 W; the FirePro has no recorded TDP. Bus interfaces differ: MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the FirePro.

API support varies slightly: DirectX 12 (11_0) for the Quadro versus 12 (11_1) for the FirePro, while both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions are 1.2.175 for the Quadro and 1.2.170 for the FirePro. The Quadro also has recorded Metal support (score 3823) and Vulkan support (score 5484), while the FirePro has no recorded scores for those APIs. Release dates are July 2013 for the Quadro and November 2015 for the FirePro. Both are end-of-life products.